Asking pip to look at award again

colinw

Dreamnine wrote: »

Nor in your case, either. In any event this forum is too low-brow for me.

How can anyone be so unbelievably pompous about this forum? Good luck in finding one that matches you’re intellect

Dreamnine

Perhaps it comes from physical sickness - this cancer has really taken it out of me; perhaps it was a mistake to come back.

Danday

Thanks Glas, your point has me thinking. I am totally in agreement that in today's society financial help should be paid to those who are disabled if only in part to bring their life to be on par with a non disabled person. However being of an age when benefits consisted mainly of National Assistance I wonder how those disabled people of the 50's and 60's managed. They received no additional financial help. They must have managed somehow, maybe knowing how they did manage could be a useful yardstick to measure against in what happens today.
Looking at PIP the idea of matching a given descriptor is nothing more than a system of one size fits. I know quite a few disabled people that have been accepted onto PIP from DLA who are over 65. I am told that they make the claim predominately for the mobility part. They are otherwise fit and healthy in body and mind yet claim that they cannot now walk more than 20 metres they previously argued under DLA a few years back that it was no more than 50 metres.Yes they do have a difficulty in walking due to common aged related conditions but how anybody can prove one way or another that not being able to walk 20 metres is a fact has lost me.
Keep PIP but make it more akin to the indivdual's issues getting rid of these descriptors and employ well experienced medical staff to make the judgement.

BorisThomson

Dreamnine wrote: »

Perhaps it comes from physical sickness - this cancer has really taken it out of me; perhaps it was a mistake to come back.

So you didn't refer to the benefits board as the "parasite boards" an hour ago?

Dreamnine wrote: »

Ah you mean the parasite boards. I'm already on decent forums, comes of being a philologist. Tips says 'Hi" No she really didn't.

GlasweJen

Danday wrote: »

Thanks Glas, your point has me thinking. I am totally in agreement that in today's society financial help should be paid to those who are disabled if only in part to bring their life to be on par with a non disabled person. However being of an age when benefits consisted mainly of National Assistance I wonder how those disabled people of the 50's and 60's managed. They received no additional financial help. They must have managed somehow, maybe knowing how they did manage could be a useful yardstick to measure against in what happens today.
Looking at PIP the idea of matching a given descriptor is nothing more than a system of one size fits. I know quite a few disabled people that have been accepted onto PIP from DLA who are over 65. I am told that they make the claim predominately for the mobility part. They are otherwise fit and healthy in body and mind yet claim that they cannot now walk more than 20 metres they previously argued under DLA a few years back that it was no more than 50 metres.Yes they do have a difficulty in walking due to common aged related conditions but how anybody can prove one way or another that not being able to walk 20 metres is a fact has lost me.
Keep PIP but make it more akin to the indivdual's issues getting rid of these descriptors and employ well experienced medical staff to make the judgement.

The government would be a fortune if they tried to give me my old life back. The PIP doesn't go near covering the expense of being severely disabled and I had to go to tribunal for my first award and mandatory reconsideration for the second award just a year later. I'm a paraplegic, there's no way that changed in the year between the tribunal and the DWP deciding to reassess me.